Predictably, two political organizations representing opposite ends of the debate on immigration reform came out with announcements today within hours of one another, one hailing the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s proposal for an immigration plan; the other panning it.

The Senate committee proposal, approved Monday, calls for an immigrant guest-worker program (pushed for by President Bush) that offers opportunity for permanent residency, and includes language that would protect churches and charities from prosecution for providing aid to undocumented immigrants.

The plan was an extreme departure from the House bill, which includes no guest-worker program, makes it a felony for churches and charities to shelter undocumented immigrants and seeks to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border.

“The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee took important steps (Monday) for bipartisan, pragmatic, fair and humane immigration reform,” said John Trasviña, senior vice president for law and policy for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

“The committee’s comprehensive bill aims at the right balance, enhancing our nation’s security while providing a path to earned legal status for the millions of undocumented workers who contribute to our communities and the economy,” Trasviña added in a prepared statement.

But the American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots lobbying organization, expressed strong objection to the immigration reform proposal, saying it effectively provides amnesty for the 11 million-plus undocumented immigrants already living in the United States.

“It appears that the members of the committee who voted for this misguided legislation are more in tune with the thousands of protesters waving Mexican flags in the streets of L.A. than they are with the overwhelming majority of Americans who are demanding that America’s borders and national security be protected,” said Bill Lauderback, the group’s executive vice president.

The groups’ polarized views mirror the philosophical gap between the House and Senate and their respective approaches to immigration. Bottom line is that it’ll be a tough challenge for both chambers to come up with a compromise plan in an election year.